Legal Opinion

In re DeLancey

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 10, 1947No. 5216PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBland, Judge

After allowing claims 8, 9, 11 and 13, drawn to structure, in appellant’s application for a patent relating to an oil burner and method of operating it, the Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office rejected method claim 12, the only remaining claim in the case. The examiner’s decision was affirmed by the Board of Appeals and appeal is here taken from the board’s decision.

The invention involved here is concerned with the electrical ignition phase of the operation of liquid fuel burners of the type generally referred to as vaporizing or pot type burners. Such burners burn fuel oil…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Potts v. CreagerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Whitlock Printing Press & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915
  3. Greenwald Bros. v. EnochsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910
  4. Faries Mfg. Co. v. George W. Brown & Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1902
  5. Mead Morrison Mfg. Co. v. Exeter Mach. WorksDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1912

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Application of Philip A. Shaffer, JrCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1956
  2. Application of BisleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
  3. Application of Claus L. SporckCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1962
  4. Application of OsplackCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1952
  5. In re DelanceyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1949

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API